Ghazaryan

Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd.

Bad Law
169 Cal. App. 4th 1524·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 2523·87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 518
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 22, 2008B201509California5,336 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perluss, J.

Sarkis Ghazaryan appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to certify a class of limousine drivers allegedly under-compensated by Diva Limousine, Ltd. (Diva), in violation of California wage and hour laws. Ghazaryan’s lawsuit contests Diva’s policy of paying its drivers an hourly rate for assigned trips but failing to pay for on-call time between assignments (referred to by Diva employees as “gap time”). Because the trial court incorrectly focused on the potential difficulty of assessing the validity of Diva’s compensation policy in light of variations in how drivers spend their gap time, we reverse the court’s denial of the motion and remand with directions to certify Ghazaryan’s two proposed subclasses.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Diva operates a limousine service in the greater Los Angeles area. At the time Ghazaryan filed his class certification motion in May 2006, Diva indicated it had employed approximately 190 drivers during the previous four years; approximately 100 still worked for the company. On any given day Diva places between 40 and 45 drivers in the field, and those drivers are dispatched on 140 to 150 trips or runs. However, the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.